William Broad’s NYT piece on Al Gore’s global warming science has been causing a stir in the blogosphere this week (original article here). Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate write, “It is rather ironic then that William Broad’s latest piece on Al Gore plays just as loose with [the facts] as he accuses Gore of doing;” David Roberts at Gristmill says it’s “the worst, sloppiest, most dishonest piece of reporting I’ve ever seen in the NYT.” Tim Lambert at Deltoid faults Broad for failing to check out claims made by climate change skeptics and for misrepresenting scientific reports. Chris Mooney at The Intersection takes a different view, since he’s found the science in Gore’s movie to be less than 100% accurate. Matthew C. Nisbet at Framing Science considers the article in the context of how journalists operate.

Wonder what the next great euphemism for “(minimum) wage slave” is. Does Tyson describe their workers as “partners”?

The fundamental trouble with relying on market forces to improve the lot of workers is that workers become “assets”.

The same logic that lets an architect calculate that a building will cost $X million, Y work-hours, and cost 2.4 lives is perverted to allow a company to say that each worker is worth $a, each injury costs $b, so if (injuries or deaths) x $b